Pubdate: Wed, 13 Feb 2013
Source: Chico Enterprise-Record (CA)
Copyright: 2013 Chico Enterprise-Record
Contact:  http://www.chicoer.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/861
Note: Letters from newspaper's circulation area receive publishing priority
Author: Roger H. Aylworth

BUTTE COUNTY ONE STEP FROM NEW MARIJUANA CULTIVATION MEASURE

OROVILLE -- Butte County is one small step from having a new 
marijuana cultivation ordinance, and nobody is entirely pleased with 
the compromise measure.

On a 4-1 vote - with Chico Supervisor Larry Wahl the lone dissenter - 
the board Tuesday "waived the first reading" of the ordinance. That 
means the measure, which limits the number of plants that can be 
grown based on the acreage of a parcel, will come back to the 
supervisors in two weeks.

At that time, the panel will be asked to give approval to the ordinance.

The measure was the creation of a 15-member committee that included 
four growers, four non-grower citizens, four members of the county 
staff, District Attorney Mike Ramsey, Sheriff Jerry Smith, and a 
meeting facilitator.

The ordinance applies only to property within the county's 
jurisdiction, and not any property within a city.

In introducing the proposal, Paul Hahn, the county's chief 
administrator and a member of the committee that framed the document, 
called the proposal a compromise.

It allows marijuana to be cultivated in all residential zones.

It prohibits gardens within 1,000 feet of schools, parks and 
youth-oriented sites.

Hahn went on to say every member of the panel would like to see some 
things changed.

Unlike an ordinance that was passed by the supervisors in May 2011 
and defeated in a referendum in June of 2012, growers are not 
required to register with the county Department of Development Services.

Where that

Advertisement

ordinance prohibited any marijuana growing on lots a half-acre or 
smaller, this effort allows indoor growing in a detached 
120-square-foot building on the smallest lots. The indoor grows have 
to be equipped with ventilation capable of masking the smell of the plants.

The indoor grows do not have a specific number of allowed plants, but 
for grows larger than a half-acre but smaller than 1.5 acre, 18 
plants are allowed.

The number of allowable plants climbs with the size of the land and 
peaks at 99 plants for 40-acre and larger lots.

Hahn stressed it is a "civil" measure that has no attached criminal 
penalties and it is driven by complaints. The complaints have to be 
made by individuals whose property is within 1,500 feet of the 
property line where the allegedly offending garden is located.

Patricia Vance, a citizen member of the committee, was more than 
unhappy with the proposal.

She said the proposal was a sellout to the growers.

"The ordinance, as it is, does no good for the people," she said.

Vance complained that the number of acceptable plants in each acreage 
is greater than in the ordinance rejected by county voters.

Rob McKenzie, one of the four marijuana advocates on the committee, 
said many of the panel's sessions were "acrimonious," and he praised 
the county staff for keeping things calm and on track.

He said the final product is "a compassionate ordinance."

During the three-hour hearing, people attacked the proposal for not 
adequately protecting neighbors from the stench of the growing 
plants, nor from the dangers of thieves and even gunfire that can 
erupt if robbers attempt to raid somebody's garden.

Others complained the ordinance was too restrictive on growers, 
particularly in the smallest lots.

Still others said the failure of Measure A was proof the people 
wanted no restrictions on marijuana growing.

Oroville Supervisor Bill Connelly, chairman of the board, said he 
felt like it must be a pretty good compromise because both sides weren't happy.

Wahl said the measure provides no protection of non-grower property 
values and it doesn't address the public safety concerns associated 
with criminality around marijuana gardens.

"Lastly, it violates federal law," said Wahl.

After the meeting, Hahn said the ordinance will come back to the 
panel for final action on Feb. 24. The public will have another 
chance then to speak for or against the item. If it passes, it goes 
into effect 60 days after the vote.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom